I have a problem with Paul and his version of events.

[JSRG]

I have a problem with Paul and his version of events.

What we know of Saul/Paul, comes from Paul. Christians today accepts his version of events, and make this person of small (Acts 9 commentary) stature (Paulus) a Giant in the religion he has invented, Pauline Christianity we have today. My issue with Paul is his disinformation, according to the ancient authors--Christian, Jewish, and Pagan. According to St. Jerome (347-420), there was a tradition among Christians in the Holy Land that Paul's parents were immigrants to Tarsus from the Judean (Galilean) city of Gischala: “they say that the parents of the apostle Paul were from Gischala, a region of Judea* and that, when the whole province was devastated by the hand of Rome and the Jews scattered throughout the world, they were moved to Tarsus a town of Cilicia; the boy Paul inherited the lot of his parents” **(St. Jerome, Commentary on Philemon, vs. 23-24). Yet, Paul claims that he is from the tribe of Benjamin, and he like his father before him are Pharisees. See Acts 23:6.

Sue for Jero.

*Jerome was first and foremost a religious author. However, geography was not his best subject, he mistook Galilee of the Gentiles/Galilee of the Nations, as being in Judea.

**Translated: by Thomas P. Scheck (2010), St Jerome’s commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, pp. 378/9, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana.

I am a bit confused here. Assuming Jerome's statements here are correct (note that Jerome only says "we have received the following story" as if to indicate he's not fully convinced of it), how is it in contradiction with Paul being from the tribe of Benjamin or that he and his father before him are Pharisees? I don't see how they contradict.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Pardon me, please. I was not saying you are defending anyone. just that you think the practice is right.
What I am asking, is, did Jesus not condemn the practice?
If the whole lot of them do it, and it's condemned, it still is wrong, isn't it?
In other word, it does not become right because all of them do it. Would you agree?

Jesus didn't condemn it. Jesus condemned the attitude of those religious leaders who loved praise and lording their authority over others. Referring to someone as a teacher (or "rabbi") or father isn't the problem. It's that the Apostles were to have a very different mindset from the religious leaders of the time.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to His disciples, 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogue, and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one Rabbi, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called teachers, for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you shall be called your slave. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Matthew 23:1-12

If we take "call no man father" out of this context, we are actually defeating the whole point Jesus is making. Jesus' point isn't that terms like "father", "teacher", or "rabbi" are bad. It's that those who follow Him should be of a completely different mindset with entirely different values than the religious elite of His day. It's about not seeking the praise and glory of men.

It's not that it's wrong to refer to someone as "father" or "teacher" (there are many fathers and teachers, both inside and outside the Faith), it's that we shouldn't expect praise, glory, or do things to exalt ourselves--but to be servants.

The appropriate takeaway here is that, taking a pastor as an example, a pastor should understand themselves as a servant--a slave--living in humility. That the pastor is received as a spiritual father by the flock over whom he has been made shepherd, and as a teacher of the faith to the congregation isn't what's wrong. It's attitude, it's mindset, it's about practicing what what is preached and not being self-important hypocrites.

If we fail to understand Jesus on this point, then we permit all manner of spiritual abuse because we are getting caught up in the details and ignoring the point--we are missing the forest for the trees.

So when St. Paul was a spiritual father to many, that wasn't a problem. Paul was a spiritual father, that's not a problem. What Paul wasn't was a braggart, he did not exalt himself, glorify himself, and go around trying to gain glory and praise. He was humble, acknowledging his smallness, and regularly called himself insignificant--Paul desired to exalt Christ, not himself. To be called a father and a teacher is no sin; but to exalt oneself over others is most assuredly a sin.

Those called to positions of authority and leadership in the Church are not to be lords, hypocrites, or puffed up; but humble servants who minister as the under-shepherds of Christ to His flock. "Peter, feed My sheep. ... Peter, feed My lambs."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Laeomis]

Here is the question... and @Laeomis, I'd be happy to hear you, if you don't mind.
John referred to those who had accepted the faith, as his children, so what did he consider himself to be, and what was he, to them... Was he not their father, and did he not refer to himself as such (1 John 2:12-14)? Therefore, would that not put John on equal with Paul, as contradicting Jesus, in your view?

Yes, they are considered your children. Jesus Christ commanded to call no one on earth father Matthew 23:9, so the will to consider yourself their father must be paradoxically denied. This is not impossible, it just becomes platonic.

 

[The Liturgist]

What I am asking, is, did Jesus not condemn the practice?

Clearly not, since St. Paul uses this terminology. And it remained in use in the early church.

 

[CoreyD]

Jesus didn't condemn it. Jesus condemned the attitude of those religious leaders who loved praise and lording their authority over others.

Did you not just contradict yourself? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Are you saying Jesus did not condemn using titles which draw attention to a status of authority, and superiority?

Jesus said, "But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Matthew 23:8, 9
We know what he meant by calling anyone on earth your father, because he did not condemn use of the term father, in their proper context.
Please see Matthew 3:9; Matthew 10:21, 36; Matthew 15:4-7; Matthew 19:5, 29.

Referring to someone as a teacher (or "rabbi") or father isn't the problem. It's that the Apostles were to have a very different mindset from the religious leaders of the time.

Agreed.
Notice you used the indefinite article "a" - "Referring to someone as a teacher (or "rabbi") or father isn't the problem."
There is a reason you did that. Explain to us the reason please.

If we take "call no man father" out of this context, we are actually defeating the whole point Jesus is making. Jesus' point isn't that terms like "father", "teacher", or "rabbi" are bad. It's that those who follow Him should be of a completely different mindset with entirely different values than the religious elite of His day. It's about not seeking the praise and glory of men.

Please elaborate a little further on why Jesus said not to be called 'Teacher' or 'Father'.

It's not that it's wrong to refer to someone as "father" or "teacher" (there are many fathers and teachers, both inside and outside the Faith), it's that we shouldn't expect praise, glory, or do things to exalt ourselves--but to be servants.

Thank you.
So, these fathers or teachers both inside and outside the faith, should expect and want persons to address them as 'Father' and 'Teacher'. Is that what you are saying?

The appropriate takeaway here is that, taking a pastor as an example, a pastor should understand themselves as a servant--a slave--living in humility. That the pastor is received as a spiritual father by the flock over whom he has been made shepherd, and as a teacher of the faith to the congregation isn't what's wrong. It's attitude, it's mindset, it's about practicing what what is preached and not being self-important hypocrites.

Thank you.
Should pastors be the only men in the congregation be considered spiritual fathers and teachers, or does this term apply to all the other mature men in the congregation who are experienced?

If we fail to understand Jesus on this point, then we permit all manner of spiritual abuse because we are getting caught up in the details and ignoring the point--we are missing the forest for the trees.

Thank you.

So when St. Paul was a spiritual father to many, that wasn't a problem. Paul was a spiritual father, that's not a problem. What Paul wasn't was a braggart, he did not exalt himself, glorify himself, and go around trying to gain glory and praise. He was humble, acknowledging his smallness, and regularly called himself insignificant--Paul desired to exalt Christ, not himself. To be called a father and a teacher is no sin; but to exalt oneself over others is most assuredly a sin.

Thank you.
Neither all the spiritual fathers who were not elders or "leaders". 1 Timothy 5:1, 2
Would you agree?

Those called to positions of authority and leadership in the Church are not to be lords, hypocrites, or puffed up; but humble servants who minister as the under-shepherds of Christ to His flock. "Peter, feed My sheep. ... Peter, feed My lambs."

-CryptoLutheran

Taking on titles that draw attention to ones status in the congregation does not demonstrate one as being a hypocrite, or puffed up?

If you don't think so, then please explain why Jesus, after stating The scribes and the Pharisees do all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ then went on to explicitly say, But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

You said context matters. Isn't the context surrounding the attitude applied to the titles?

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, they are considered your children. Jesus Christ commanded to call no one on earth father Matthew 23:9, so the will to consider yourself their father must be paradoxically denied. This is not impossible, it just becomes platonic.

Thank you for responding.
So, for clarity, in your view, the apostle John contradicted Jesus, and referring to Abraham as "our father" is a sin, in your view?

 

[CoreyD]

Clearly not, since St. Paul uses this terminology. And it remained in use in the early church.

Please show me where St Paul used Father as a title of one's status.
Also, could you please explain your earlier statement about the term being used metaphorically, and how this differs from the use of the term being applied regarding the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees.
Thank you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did you not just contradict yourself? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You might be misunderstanding me.

Are you saying Jesus did not condemn using titles which draw attention to a status of authority, and superiority?

I'm saying Jesus' point isn't that terms like "rabbi", "father", or "teacher" are inherently the problem. That's not Jesus' point. It's the desire for status, for attention, and superiority that's the problem.

If I refer to my physician as "Dr So and So" that's not a problem. Even though "doctor" is just Latin for "teacher". When someone has their doctorate degree and are styled "Doctor", calling them "Doctor" isn't a problem. As an example, when I refer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr or Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Calling him "doctor" and "reverend" isn't in violation to what the Lord said.

Jesus isn't picking apart semantics. Jesus is saying, "Notice how the scribes and Pharisees, though they have authority and you should listen to what they say, do not act like they act, they're hypocrites, and they love to receive praise and fame and be treated with privilege" Jesus is pointing that out and then saying "It shall not be this way for you" Don't be like that, don't act like that. Don't hunger for glory and privilege and power. That is the context of "Call no one rabbi" and "Call no one father" and "Call no one teacher". It's not that "rabbi" is some kind of taboo word, it's that those who seek to be styled "rabbi" by the masses aren't in it for the right reasons, they are in it for attention, power, and privilege.

If we translate this situation to the situation of a pastor of a church, calling a pastor "Pastor" or calling them "Reverend" or calling them "Father" that's not the issue. The issue is if that pastor is in it for the power, for personal ambition, for privilege, for fame or recognition etc. It is not the one who seeks to be great that is great, but the one who seeks to be small; for the greatest is the slave. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.

Christians are to be found in lowliness, and this is true also of those who have been granted the privilege of serving as shepherds of Christ's flock. If a pastor (priest, bishop, or whatever terms we want to apply to this concept of pastor or shepherd) is acting in such a way that they are in it for glory, rather than ministry and service, then they are in the wrong. It doesn't matter what they are called. It matters how they conduct themselves.

Bringing this back to Paul, when Paul styles himself a father (of the Corinthians, or of St. Timothy) Paul is not violating what Jesus said; nor is it a violation of what Jesus said if Timothy (as an example) viewed Paul as a spiritual father, and as a teacher. Because Paul's personal conduct is in keeping with what the Lord taught and said. Time and again Paul speaks of himself as a servant, that he is the "least of the apostles" that he is unfit to be called an apostle and is only an apostle by the grace of God. Paul knows that he is the "chief of sinners" and so doesn't parade around seeking fame, glory, and isn't interested in personal ambition. He is in the ministry to minister, he is an apostle because Jesus made him an apostle, Paul's work speaks for itself, and the authority by which he speaks is true, he is an apostle and thus is Christ's ambassador and representative from the authority and word of Jesus Christ Himself; but Paul does not glory or boast of himself, of his ability. He does not say, "Listen to me, for I am a Hebrew among Hebrews, a Pharisee among Pharisees, a doctor and scholar of the Torah extraordinaire'" Instead he actually says "I consider these things as dung for the sake of Christ".

Paul had the authority and he also practiced what he preached.

Because what Jesus was concerned with wasn't the semantics of "father" or "teacher" but the attitudes, mindset, the condition of the heart, the disposition of the heart.

Jesus said, "But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Matthew 23:8, 9
We know what he meant by calling anyone on earth your father, because he did not condemn use of the term father, in their proper context.
Please see Matthew 3:9; Matthew 10:21, 36; Matthew 15:4-7; Matthew 19:5, 29.

So you agree that there are situations in which "father" is acceptable, right? It is okay to call Abraham our father in the faith. Can I call, for example, St. Paul a father in the faith?

And if my pastor, who bears the responsibility of raising up God's children in and with God's word, is a spiritual father to those of us in the congregation of which he has been tasked with serving and ministering to is called "father" why does this become wrong, when it is not wrong for Abraham or Paul to be a father?

If there can be proper uses of "father" in reference to people, then we should be concerned with the improper use of "father". Correct? Then it's not the use of the word "father" itself that is the problem, it's the use and context of "father" that is relevant. Correct?

Agreed.
Notice you used the indefinite article "a" - "Referring to someone as a teacher (or "rabbi") or father isn't the problem."
There is a reason you did that. Explain to us the reason please.

I did that because those are the rules of English grammar? I have a father, my biological father (had, I suppose, he ha since passed) I called him "Dad", he was my dad, my father. He was a father, because he was a father to me. He was my dad, my father.

Please elaborate a little further on why Jesus said not to be called 'Teacher' or 'Father'.

Hopefully I've successfully done that by now.

Thank you.
So, these fathers or teachers both inside and outside the faith, should expect and want persons to address them as 'Father' and 'Teacher'. Is that what you are saying?

If they are of that mindset then that's a problem. That's the attitude Jesus was speaking against. If my pastor threw a tantrum because I called him Gary instead of Pastor Gary then that's an immature and poor attitude, and might speak to his unfitness to be a pastor in the first place. Though, that's not a problem. When I say, "Pastor said..." or "Pastor's sermon this week..." I'm not sinning. Because he is a pastor, he's my pastor. But if my pastor was uptight about titles, then that's a bad attitude, it's an unChristian attitude to have, especially for someone bearing the responsibility of being a minister of God's word and shepherd of God's flock.

Thank you.
Should pastors be the only men in the congregation be considered spiritual fathers and teachers, or does this term apply to all the other mature men in the congregation who are experienced?

I have had lots of spiritual fathers (and mothers). Only some of them have been pastors. I have had many teachers, and only some of them have been pastors. Being ordained to the Sacred Office is not a prerequisite to being a teacher of the faith, or being a spiritual father or mother. But those who are ordained to the Sacred Office are, historically, teachers (because teaching is part of the vocation of pastor) and are a spiritual parent to the Faithful under their care.

I've never called my pastor "Father" and I've never referred to my pastor as "Father So and so". That's not standard practice for Lutherans in North America (mileage may differ in other parts of the world, I'm not entirely sure). We typically just say "Pastor".

Thank you.


Thank you.
Neither all the spiritual fathers who were not elders or "leaders". 1 Timothy 5:1, 2
Would you agree?

I don't understand the question in relation to the statement you are responding to. When you say "neither" neither what?

As it pertains to what St. Paul says to Timothy here, Paul is saying that we should treat older men as father (and, I'd add, older women as mothers). That's how things should operate in the Church--that we operate as a loving family.

Taking on titles that draw attention to ones status in the congregation does not demonstrate one as being a hypocrite, or puffed up?

Again, if someone sits there and says, "I expect you to call me this, this, and the other thing" then that'd be a huge red flag for me. I wouldn't be comfortable with a pastor who wanted to pile up praises, titles, etc; because a pastor's duty and obligation is to be a servant and minister. It is because they are servants that I respect them as a pastor, as a spiritual father, as a shepherd of the flock of Christ. They sit in the apostles' seat because of the ordination they have received from the Church, by their calling to Ministry; but it is an obligation upon them that they bear the weight of that responsibility with humility and lowliness.

If you don't think so, then please explain why Jesus, after stating The scribes and the Pharisees do all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ then went on to explicitly say, But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

You said context matters. Isn't the context surrounding the attitude applied to the titles?

The "titles" are to be in the context of the attitude Jesus is talking about.

Question: Do you imagine that most pastors go around saying "I expect you to call me 'Father'"? I mean, I definitely know of bad pastors out there (and usually they aren't being called "father" by anyone), but it hasn't been my experience that pastors go around doing this. Not the majority of them anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please show me where St Paul used Father as a title of one's status.
Also, could you please explain your earlier statement about the term being used metaphorically, and how this differs from the use of the term being applied regarding the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees.
Thank you.

Perhaps a problem here is that you think "Father" is a title of status, rather than a term of endearment and affection, which is how it's been used historically in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

You might be misunderstanding me.

I'm sorry.

I'm saying Jesus' point isn't that terms like "rabbi", "father", or "teacher" are inherently the problem. That's not Jesus' point. It's the desire for status, for attention, and superiority that's the problem.

If I refer to my physician as "Dr So and So" that's not a problem. Even though "doctor" is just Latin for "teacher". When someone has their doctorate degree and are styled "Doctor", calling them "Doctor" isn't a problem.

For one thing, no one said not to be called 'Doctor', and that's not a religious issue, so please take this in good stead... That's a bad example.

As an example, when I refer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr or Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Calling him "doctor" and "reverend" isn't in violation to what the Lord said.

Why are you not violating what the lord said, particularly with the use of Reverend?
I'm assuming you know what reverend means, and you are using it as a title.

Jesus isn't picking apart semantics. Jesus is saying, "Notice how the scribes and Pharisees, though they have authority and you should listen to what they say, do not act like they act, they're hypocrites, and they love to receive praise and fame and be treated with privilege" Jesus is pointing that out and then saying "It shall not be this way for you" Don't be like that, don't act like that. Don't hunger for glory and privilege and power. That is the context of "Call no one rabbi" and "Call no one father" and "Call no one teacher". It's not that "rabbi" is some kind of taboo word, it's that those who seek to be styled "rabbi" by the masses aren't in it for the right reasons, they are in it for attention, power, and privilege.

We can all read Jesus words.
In verse 3, Jesus said, "don’t follow their example"; "do not do according to their works".... and you are saying that Jesus after saying that, makes statements that do not mean what he stated, but means what he earlier said?

One thing I do not do, is argue with persons who take words and change them to what they interpret them to mean.

I can relate to @Laeomis, because he is quoting what is written in black and white, and not changing what Jesus said.
Even if @Laeomis takes it to a level that may be extreme, at least they leave the words intact.
I can live with that, because, I can use other scriptures, as I did, to show that the extreme view contradicts other scriptures.

One who changes the words to their interpretation however, has taken a liberty that allows them to change any text to mean what they think it means.

If we translate this situation to the situation of a pastor of a church, calling a pastor "Pastor" or calling them "Reverend" or calling them "Father" that's not the issue. The issue is if that pastor is in it for the power, for personal ambition, for privilege, for fame or recognition etc. It is not the one who seeks to be great that is great, but the one who seeks to be small; for the greatest is the slave. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.

Christians are to be found in lowliness, and this is true also of those who have been granted the privilege of serving as shepherds of Christ's flock. If a pastor (priest, bishop, or whatever terms we want to apply to this concept of pastor or shepherd) is acting in such a way that they are in it for glory, rather than ministry and service, then they are in the wrong. It doesn't matter what they are called. It matters how they conduct themselves.

Jesus said it matters to him.
Matthew 23:8-10
8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

You say differently, so, your issue is with Jesus. You'll have to tell him that.
'Jesus. It does not matter what they are called.' Go ahead. Tell him.

I don't think you have a problem reading. what Jesus said. Am I right?

Bringing this back to Paul, when Paul styles himself a father (of the Corinthians, or of St. Timothy) Paul is not violating what Jesus said; nor is it a violation of what Jesus said if Timothy (as an example) viewed Paul as a spiritual father, and as a teacher. Because Paul's personal conduct is in keeping with what the Lord taught and said. Time and again Paul speaks of himself as a servant, that he is the "least of the apostles" that he is unfit to be called an apostle and is only an apostle by the grace of God. Paul knows that he is the "chief of sinners" and so doesn't parade around seeking fame, glory, and isn't interested in personal ambition. He is in the ministry to minister, he is an apostle because Jesus made him an apostle, Paul's work speaks for itself, and the authority by which he speaks is true, he is an apostle and thus is Christ's ambassador and representative from the authority and word of Jesus Christ Himself; but Paul does not glory or boast of himself, of his ability. He does not say, "Listen to me, for I am a Hebrew among Hebrews, a Pharisee among Pharisees, a doctor and scholar of the Torah extraordinaire'" Instead he actually says "I consider these things as dung for the sake of Christ".

Neither does he have a title pinned to him - Father Paul - for the congregation to address him by.

Paul had the authority and he also practiced what he preached.

Because what Jesus was concerned with wasn't the semantics of "father" or "teacher" but the attitudes, mindset, the condition of the heart, the disposition of the heart.

The attitude and mindset that drives one to take on titles they want to be called by.
Action speaks louder than words. Isn't that so?

So you agree that there are situations in which "father" is acceptable, right? It is okay to call Abraham our father in the faith. Can I call, for example, St. Paul a father in the faith?

See my post. I already on more than one occasion explained all of that.

And if my pastor, who bears the responsibility of raising up God's children in and with God's word, is a spiritual father to those of us in the congregation of which he has been tasked with serving and ministering to is called "father" why does this become wrong, when it is not wrong for Abraham or Paul to be a father?

Did you read my post? I think you missed a lot of what I said.
Please look it over, for the pastor bit.
If you need help, please let me know, and I will go over it with you.

If there can be proper uses of "father" in reference to people, then we should be concerned with the improper use of "father". Correct? Then it's not the use of the word "father" itself that is the problem, it's the use and context of "father" that is relevant. Correct?

I'm a bit perplexed.
If you read my posts, why are you asking these questions.
I know you aren't just killing time, or buying time.
However, I can try to explain clearly if it was not clear.

I did that because those are the rules of English grammar? I have a father, my biological father (had, I suppose, he ha since passed) I called him "Dad", he was my dad, my father. He was a father, because he was a father to me. He was my dad, my father.

You used it spiritually, did you not?
Or did I misread you?

Hopefully I've successfully done that by now.

If they are of that mindset then that's a problem. That's the attitude Jesus was speaking against. If my pastor threw a tantrum because I called him Gary instead of Pastor Gary then that's an immature and poor attitude, and might speak to his unfitness to be a pastor in the first place. Though, that's not a problem. When I say, "Pastor said..." or "Pastor's sermon this week..." I'm not sinning. Because he is a pastor, he's my pastor. But if my pastor was uptight about titles, then that's a bad attitude, it's an unChristian attitude to have, especially for someone bearing the responsibility of being a minister of God's word and shepherd of God's flock.

I have had lots of spiritual fathers (and mothers). Only some of them have been pastors. I have had many teachers, and only some of them have been pastors. Being ordained to the Sacred Office is not a prerequisite to being a teacher of the faith, or being a spiritual father or mother. But those who are ordained to the Sacred Office are, historically, teachers (because teaching is part of the vocation of pastor) and are a spiritual parent to the Faithful under their care.

Okay. Thank you.

I've never called my pastor "Father" and I've never referred to my pastor as "Father So and so". That's not standard practice for Lutherans in North America (mileage may differ in other parts of the world, I'm not entirely sure). We typically just say "Pastor".

Please tell us why you were called "Father"
I'll have to get back to you later, to address the rest.
Thank you.

 

[Lukaris]

Luke 16:24-25

 

[CoreyD]

I don't understand the question in relation to the statement you are responding to. When you say "neither" neither what?

Okay. that helps me understand why you have been asking those questions. You don't get what I have been saying.
I'll explain everything at this point then.

1 John 2:14

I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

The fathers here are not men who have been given responsibilities in the congregation to teach. They are not elders, but older men - men experienced in age, in the congregation, who are fathers, because like all men and women in the congregation, the younger ones are their children, whom they can guide both by word and example.

The same goes for the following...
Philemon 1:9, 10

rather, I exhort you for the sake of love, being such a one as Paul, now aged and also a prisoner of Christ Jesus.
I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whose father I became while I was in chains.

1 Timothy 5:1, 2

Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as to a father. Treat younger men as brothers

They are simply spiritual fathers to all the young people in the congregation, through their experience which they can impart to others.

Paul, for example, was a spiritual father to an entire congregation, because he brought them into the truth, through his ministry. 1 Corinthians 4:14-17
In the same way, men who are not appointed elders, have many children in the congregation, through their share in the ministry, and helping persons to the faith.
Hence, one does not have to be appointed as a bishop with the responsibility to teach the congregation, to be a spiritual father.

That's what I meant.
Regarding this, and what Jesus said, there is a difference between being a spiritual father and having the title father applied to you.
Nowhere is Father applied to Paul, or any member of the body. Not once do we read, Father Paul; Father Peter; Father James.
This is what Jesus condemned explicitly. Matthew 23:8-10

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.​

And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.​

Nor are you to be called kathégétés: teacher, for you have one kathégétés: teacher, the Christ.​

The context, as well as these instructions, along with the fact that Jesus did not condemn the use of the term father, should make it clear that the condemnation is on having or giving religious titles to men, which obviously calls attention to their status or position - a glorifying of self.

The admittance was made clear from those who maintain this practice, although they try to justify it.
Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.

II hope that's clear.

As it pertains to what St. Paul says to Timothy here, Paul is saying that we should treat older men as father (and, I'd add, older women as mothers). That's how things should operate in the Church--that we operate as a loving family.

Again, if someone sits there and says, "I expect you to call me this, this, and the other thing" then that'd be a huge red flag for me. I wouldn't be comfortable with a pastor who wanted to pile up praises, titles, etc; because a pastor's duty and obligation is to be a servant and minister. It is because they are servants that I respect them as a pastor, as a spiritual father, as a shepherd of the flock of Christ. They sit in the apostles' seat because of the ordination they have received from the Church, by their calling to Ministry; but it is an obligation upon them that they bear the weight of that responsibility with humility and lowliness.

The "titles" are to be in the context of the attitude Jesus is talking about.

Where is that written, please?
Where does Jesus say, you can call person Rabbi, but be sure to have the right attitude?

Question: Do you imagine that most pastors go around saying "I expect you to call me 'Father'"? I mean, I definitely know of bad pastors out there (and usually they aren't being called "father" by anyone), but it hasn't been my experience that pastors go around doing this. Not the majority of them anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

Not all religions have the practice of using Father, Reverend, ect., as titles.
The ones who maintain the practice have already demonstrated their attitude.
Your actions, speak louder than you can scream.

If you want words though, you don't need to search as though looking for a needle in a haystack.

Clergy Etiquette​

The following is a guide for properly addressing Orthodox clergy. Most of the titles do not exactly correspond to the terms used in Greek, Russian, or the other native languages of the national Orthodox Churches, but they have been widely accepted as standard English usages.​

​

Greeting Clergy in Person. When we address Deacons or Priests, we should use the title "Father." Bishops we should address as "Your Grace." Though all Bishops (including Patriarchs) are equal in the Orthodox Church, they do have different administrative duties and honors that accrue to their rank in this sense. Thus, "Your Eminence" is the proper title for Bishops with suffragans or assistant Bishops, Metropolitans, and most Archbishops (among the exceptions to this rule is the Archbishop of Athens, who is addressed as "Your Beatitude"). "Your Beatitude" is the proper title for Patriarchs (except for the Œcumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, who is addressed as "Your All—Holiness"). When we approach an Orthodox Presbyter or Bishop (but not a Deacon), we make a bow by reaching down and touching the floor with our right hand, place our right hand over the left (palms upward), and say: "Bless, Father" (or "Bless, Your Grace," or "Bless, Your Eminence," etc.). The Priest or Bishop then answers, "May the Lord bless you," blesses us with the Sign of the Cross, and places his right hand in our hands. We kiss then his hand.​

That didn't require any kind of imagination, did it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm sorry.


For one thing, no one said not to be called 'Doctor', and that's not a religious issue, so please take this in good stead... That's a bad example.

The word doctor is the Latin word for "teacher". It's a word often used in a religious context, I'm not sure why it's a bad example, it seems like a perfectly reasonable example in this context and on this issue.

Why are you not violating what the lord said, particularly with the use of Reverend?
I'm assuming you know what reverend means, and you are using it as a title.

I also call people "Mister". You do know what that means, right?

This is an example of how this kind of improper reading of Jesus' words breaks down very quickly. The inconsistency with which Jesus' words are applied ends up being targeted.

This ends up being more about taking having a problem with traditional Christian practice, in particular Catholicism, for the sake of polemics rather than having a more thorough, consistent, and exegetical approach to what Jesus is saying.

We can all read Jesus words.
In verse 3, Jesus said, "don’t follow their example"; "do not do according to their works".... and you are saying that Jesus after saying that, makes statements that do not mean what he stated, but means what he earlier said?

I don't think I've been vague in what I've said and in my engagement with the Lord's words. My entire argument is that what Jesus said and what Jesus means are based on the whole context going on here. And that taking what Jesus said out of that context is not taking what He said seriously. It's an act of missing the point.

One thing I do not do, is argue with persons who take words and change them to what they interpret them to mean.

Everyone interprets words. You are having me argue with you in the way you take words and change them to what you interpret them to mean. My entire point has been to get to core of what Jesus is saying, why He is saying it, and to take the passage contextually and employ good exegesis. Rather than just changing what Jesus means to suit our own pleasure.

I can relate to @Laeomis, because he is quoting what is written in black and white, and not changing what Jesus said.
Even if @Laeomis takes it to a level that may be extreme, at least they leave the words intact.
I can live with that, because, I can use other scriptures, as I did, to show that the extreme view contradicts other scriptures.

One who changes the words to their interpretation however, has taken a liberty that allows them to change any text to mean what they think it means.

I haven't changed anything. I have sought to employ exegesis to bring out the meaning of the text based upon the context, on what Jesus' point is.

Jesus said it matters to him.
Matthew 23:8-10
8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Why does Jesus say this. Jesus didn't say this for no reason. There is an entire conversation and entire circumstance going on here. Jesus didn't say this out of no where, there's a reason why He said this, and that is how we understand why He said it, and what He means by this.

Taking this out of context to simply say "using terms to refer to people is bad" is a bad reading of the text.

You say differently, so, your issue is with Jesus. You'll have to tell him that.
'Jesus. It does not matter what they are called.' Go ahead. Tell him.

Instead of getting upset at me because you don't like my argument. Let's stick to the argument itself. The Lord already knows everything there is to be known.

I don't think you have a problem reading. what Jesus said. Am I right?


Neither does he have a title pinned to him - Father Paul - for the congregation to address him by.

How about "Apostle Paul"?

The attitude and mindset that drives one to take on titles they want to be called by.
Action speaks louder than words. Isn't that so?


See my post. I already on more than one occasion explained all of that.


Did you read my post? I think you missed a lot of what I said.
Please look it over, for the pastor bit.
If you need help, please let me know, and I will go over it with you.


I'm a bit perplexed.
If you read my posts, why are you asking these questions.
I know you aren't just killing time, or buying time.
However, I can try to explain clearly if it was not clear.


You used it spiritually, did you not?
Or did I misread you?

I suspect you are reading more into what I'm saying than what I'm saying. I'm trying to speak plainly, so as far as I'm aware there is no subtext or need to read between the lines in what I'm saying.

The reason why I said "a father" is because I don't believe that calling a pastor "father" is about "titles" in the way you are talking about. I think your issue is much less to do with what Jesus said, and about using terms for people, and more about having a problem with the common practice of some Christian communities. It seems to me to be about interdenominational polemics more than anything.

Okay. Thank you.


Please tell us why you were called "Father"
I'll have to get back to you later, to address the rest.
Thank you.

I've never been called "Father". I'm not a pastor. I'm not a biological father either, I'm an unmarried single man without children, I'm just a member of a congregation.

What I said was that I've never called my pastor "Father", because that isn't standard practice among Lutherans, at least here in North America. I just call my pastor "Pastor" or "Gary".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

Perhaps a problem here is that you think "Father" is a title of status, rather than a term of endearment and affection, which is how it's been used historically in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think it. It is written. See my previous post.

Some of us may be in the dark because some of us think all we need to do, is have a Bible, belong to a church, and call on the name of Jesus. Everything else is small potatoes. So we pay no attention to glaring untruths.
We practically ignore Jesus words at Matthew 7:13-23

The Narrow Way​

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits​

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I Never Knew You​

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

 

[CoreyD]

Instead of getting upset at me because you don't like my argument. Let's stick to the argument itself. The Lord already knows everything there is to be known.

I am upset with you because I said what I did?
You either changed my words to what you interpreted them to mean, or you misinterpreted them.
Which would you say?

How about "Apostle Paul"?

Please quote the verse.
I read the apostle Paul.
I hope you do understand what a title is.

I suspect you are reading more into what I'm saying than what I'm saying. I'm trying to speak plainly, so as far as I'm aware there is no subtext or need to read between the lines in what I'm saying.

The reason why I said "a father" is because I don't believe that calling a pastor "father" is about "titles" in the way you are talking about. I think your issue is much less to do with what Jesus said, and about using terms for people, and more about having a problem with the common practice of some Christian communities. It seems to me to be about interdenominational polemics more than anything.

I've never been called "Father". I'm not a pastor. I'm not a biological father either, I'm an unmarried single man without children, I'm just a member of a congregation.

What I said was that I've never called my pastor "Father", because that isn't standard practice among Lutherans, at least here in North America. I just call my pastor "Pastor" or "Gary".

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you.

 

[CoreyD]

The word doctor is the Latin word for "teacher". It's a word often used in a religious context, I'm not sure why it's a bad example, it seems like a perfectly reasonable example in this context and on this issue.

I did not realize Doctor meant Teacher. Thank you.
Now I understand why many people object to almost every celebrity having the title Doctor. They are seeking glory, drawing attention to their important roles - their status.
Your example was appropriate then.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay. that helps me understand why you have been asking those questions. You don't get what I have been saying.
I'll explain everything at this point then.

1 John 2:14

The fathers here are not men who have been given responsibilities in the congregation to teach. They are not elders, but older men - men experienced in age, in the congregation, who are fathers, because like all men and women in the congregation, the younger ones are their children, whom they can guide both by word and example.

The same goes for the following...
Philemon 1:9, 10


1 Timothy 5:1, 2


They are simply spiritual fathers to all the young people in the congregation, through their experience which they can impart to others.

Paul, for example, was a spiritual father to an entire congregation, because he brought them into the truth, through his ministry. 1 Corinthians 4:14-17
In the same way, men who are not appointed elders, have many children in the congregation, through their share in the ministry, and helping persons to the faith.
Hence, one does not have to be appointed as a bishop with the responsibility to teach the congregation, to be a spiritual father.

At any point did I give any indication that only pastors could be spiritual fathers?

That was the source of my confusion.

That's what I meant.
Regarding this, and what Jesus said, there is a difference between being a spiritual father and having the title father applied to you.
Nowhere is Father applied to Paul, or any member of the body. Not once do we read, Father Paul; Father Peter; Father James.
This is what Jesus condemned explicitly. Matthew 23:8-10

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.​

And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.​

Nor are you to be called kathégétés: teacher, for you have one kathégétés: teacher, the Christ.​

The context, as well as these instructions, along with the fact that Jesus did not condemn the use of the term father, should make it clear that the condemnation is on having or giving religious titles to men, which obviously calls attention to their status or position - a glorifying of self.

And I disagree that referring to a pastor as "Father So and so" is a self-imposed self-righteous title. It is a term of endearment from the congregation.

In the same way that, historically, in monastic life men are called "Brother" while the leader of the community--the Abbot, from the Aramaic word Abba meaning "Father"--is called "Father"; likewise women in the monastic life are called "Sister" and the head of the community, the Abbess (the feminine form of Abbot) is called "Mother". These are not self-righteous titles, but terminology that grew out of life together among those Christians living under a monastic rule.

The same with terms like Reverend, and Pastor (meaning "Shepherd"), or Doctor. When the Faithful talk to one another with love, affection, and respect and use such language it is not about people acting like self-righteous Pharisees, but about familial affection and respect in keeping with the patterns of behavior taught and instructed in Holy Scripture.

This was far more common when people tended to speak and act with more formality than Modern Westerners. We still have the vestiges of this, it's why I often refer to people as "Sir" and "Ma'am" ("Ma'am" is a contraction of Madam, originating from the Old French ma Dame or "my Lady", where "Lady" is the feminine form of "Lord"--both Lord and Lady originating as terms for speaking of the master/mistress of the house). We still have vestiges of this old formality, but western society has--by and large--become far more informal. That's neither a bad or good thing, it's just how society and culture changes.

So while I tend to just call my pastor "Gary" or "Pastor Gary" a generation or two before me "Reverend" would have been far more common. That only speaks to formality and informality. Which is a cultural thing. If you're interested in the ways culture shapes language, take a look at the complexity of honorifics used in the Japanese language, a culture that while more informal than in prior generations is still a culture with deeply embedded societal formalities--that also includes Japanese Christians who will refer to their pastor with either the honorific of Sensei or Sama.

The admittance was made clear from those who maintain this practice, although they try to justify it.
Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.

II hope that's clear.

I think it clarifies that this is really about polemics, and that this is more about targeting Roman Catholic practice than it is about understanding and taking Jesus seriously in Matthew 23.

Where is that written, please?
Where does Jesus say, you can call person Rabbi, but be sure to have the right attitude?


Not all religions have the practice of using Father, Reverend, ect., as titles.
The ones who maintain the practice have already demonstrated their attitude.
Your actions, speak louder than you can scream.

If you want words though, you don't need to search as though looking for a needle in a haystack.

Clergy Etiquette​

The following is a guide for properly addressing Orthodox clergy. Most of the titles do not exactly correspond to the terms used in Greek, Russian, or the other native languages of the national Orthodox Churches, but they have been widely accepted as standard English usages.​

​

Greeting Clergy in Person. When we address Deacons or Priests, we should use the title "Father." Bishops we should address as "Your Grace." Though all Bishops (including Patriarchs) are equal in the Orthodox Church, they do have different administrative duties and honors that accrue to their rank in this sense. Thus, "Your Eminence" is the proper title for Bishops with suffragans or assistant Bishops, Metropolitans, and most Archbishops (among the exceptions to this rule is the Archbishop of Athens, who is addressed as "Your Beatitude"). "Your Beatitude" is the proper title for Patriarchs (except for the Œcumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, who is addressed as "Your All—Holiness"). When we approach an Orthodox Presbyter or Bishop (but not a Deacon), we make a bow by reaching down and touching the floor with our right hand, place our right hand over the left (palms upward), and say: "Bless, Father" (or "Bless, Your Grace," or "Bless, Your Eminence," etc.). The Priest or Bishop then answers, "May the Lord bless you," blesses us with the Sign of the Cross, and places his right hand in our hands. We kiss then his hand.​

That didn't require any kind of imagination, did it?

It does require you to have a personal prejudice against traditional Christian practice without a desire to understand it, and fully confirms that this is about polemics and not about what Jesus did or didn't mean.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think it. It is written. See my previous post.

Some of us may be in the dark because some of us think all we need to do, is have a Bible, belong to a church, and call on the name of Jesus. Everything else is small potatoes. So we pay no attention to glaring untruths.
We practically ignore Jesus words at Matthew 7:13-23

The Narrow Way​

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits​

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I Never Knew You​

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

It never cease to amaze me the ways in which some will become the very thing they think they are fighting against.

I will, as an example, refer to say, St. Paul or St. Augustine, and this will become a source of contention for some (not you, I have no idea what you would say, if anything, but some have and do make it a source of contention). They usually respond by saying "All Christians are saints", as though this was something I and other Christians are unaware of--we also read the New Testament, and many of us say the Apostles' Creed every Sunday in which we confess our faith in the "Communion of Saints"--the fellowship of all Christian Faithful in Christ. And yet, I freely and voluntarily use "Saint" or its abbreviated "St." as an honorific for many of the Faithful who have lived and since fallen asleep in the Lord as a way to show deference and respect. And here, my language will be policed by certain people thinking they are being pious; when in fact they are merely being legalistic, moralistic, and trying to showcase their own supposed spiritual and religious superiority. Not unlike those very Pharisees and scribes whom the Lord rebuked, not only here in Matthew 23, but regularly.

The spirit and pride of those Pharisees is manifest, and yet those who engage in it are seemingly blind to it, and ironically engage in it--for no good reason except to pat themselves on the back and speak ill of their brothers or sisters whom they perceive as lesser.

And here, you use the words of Christ, not to instruct toward following Christ or to holy discipleship; but as a means of promoting yourself as one superior.

I am following the broad way of destruction and will hear the Lord say "I never knew you", why? Because you want to become judge and jury of your brothers and sisters whom you believe lesser than you?

Dear Christian friend, you strain at gnats while swallowing a camel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

At any point did I give any indication that only pastors could be spiritual fathers?

That was the source of my confusion.

And I disagree that referring to a pastor as "Father So and so" is a self-imposed self-righteous title. It is a term of endearment from the congregation.

I understand your position on the subject.

In the same way that, historically, in monastic life men are called "Brother" while the leader of the community--the Abbot, from the Aramaic word Abba meaning "Father"--is called "Father"; likewise women in the monastic life are called "Sister" and the head of the community, the Abbess (the feminine form of Abbot) is called "Mother". These are not self-righteous titles, but terminology that grew out of life together among those Christians living under a monastic rule.

The same with terms like Reverend, and Pastor (meaning "Shepherd"), or Doctor. When the Faithful talk to one another with love, affection, and respect and use such language it is not about people acting like self-righteous Pharisees, but about familial affection and respect in keeping with the patterns of behavior taught and instructed in Holy Scripture.

This was far more common when people tended to speak and act with more formality than Modern Westerners. We still have the vestiges of this, it's why I often refer to people as "Sir" and "Ma'am" ("Ma'am" is a contraction of Madam, originating from the Old French ma Dame or "my Lady", where "Lady" is the feminine form of "Lord"--both Lord and Lady originating as terms for speaking of the master/mistress of the house). We still have vestiges of this old formality, but western society has--by and large--become far more informal. That's neither a bad or good thing, it's just how society and culture changes.

So while I tend to just call my pastor "Gary" or "Pastor Gary" a generation or two before me "Reverend" would have been far more common. That only speaks to formality and informality. Which is a cultural thing. If you're interested in the ways culture shapes language, take a look at the complexity of honorifics used in the Japanese language, a culture that while more informal than in prior generations is still a culture with deeply embedded societal formalities--that also includes Japanese Christians who will refer to their pastor with either the honorific of Sensei or Sama.

Yes, I agree that the early deviators from Christ teachings, made these titles - Sister, Brother, and so forth. The traditions has continued down to this day.
You aren't saying that makes Jesus' statements void, are you?

I think it clarifies that this is really about polemics, and that this is more about targeting Roman Catholic practice than it is about understanding and taking Jesus seriously in Matthew 23.

That is sad.

Why would you think that someone is targeting a group just because they take scriptures to be God's word, and are seeking to follow them?
You probably think @Laeomis and @JesusFollowerForever are targeting Paul.

It's not a matter of targeting anyone. It's a matter of reading the Bible, understanding it one way, and trying to apply what one reads.
It's the same as how you refer to certain religions as cults, because you read the Bible, and understand it one way, and it differs from another group's understanding.

Is it right to say, you are just targeting those groups?

It does require you to have a personal prejudice against traditional Christian practice without a desire to understand it, and fully confirms that this is about polemics and not about what Jesus did or didn't mean.

-CryptoLutheran

So you're prejudiced against Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others who do not believe what you do. Yes?

 

[CoreyD]

It never cease to amaze me the ways in which some will become the very thing they think they are fighting against.

I will, as an example, refer to say, St. Paul or St. Augustine, and this will become a source of contention for some (not you, I have no idea what you would say, if anything, but some have and do make it a source of contention). They usually respond by saying "All Christians are saints", as though this was something I and other Christians are unaware of--we also read the New Testament, and many of us say the Apostles' Creed every Sunday in which we confess our faith in the "Communion of Saints"--the fellowship of all Christian Faithful in Christ. And yet, I freely and voluntarily use "Saint" or its abbreviated "St." as an honorific for many of the Faithful who have lived and since fallen asleep in the Lord as a way to show deference and respect. And here, my language will be policed by certain people thinking they are being pious; when in fact they are merely being legalistic, moralistic, and trying to showcase their own supposed spiritual and religious superiority. Not unlike those very Pharisees and scribes whom the Lord rebuked, not only here in Matthew 23, but regularly.

I am in agreement.

The spirit and pride of those Pharisees is manifest, and yet those who engage in it are seemingly blind to it, and ironically engage in it--for no good reason except to pat themselves on the back and speak ill of their brothers or sisters whom they perceive as lesser.

And here, you use the words of Christ, not to instruct toward following Christ or to holy discipleship; but as a means of promoting yourself as one superior.

I am following the broad way of destruction and will hear the Lord say "I never knew you", why? Because you want to become judge and jury of your brothers and sisters whom you believe lesser than you?

Dear Christian friend, you strain at gnats while swallowing a camel.

-CryptoLutheran

I did not realize that you think all we need to do, is have a Bible, belong to a church, and call on the name of Jesus. Everything else is small potatoes.
If I knew that, I would not have said it, and I would have approached the conversation differently.

My apologies for offending you.